High court order delineates the distinct jurisdictions and roles of the Consumer Court and the Healthcare Commission, highlighting their complementary yet separate functions: ### Consumer Court 1. **Scope of Authority**: The Consumer Court deals with claims for damages arising from faulty or defective services, including medical services, under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005. 2. **Types of Claims**: It handles claims of damages, whether contractual or tortious, filed by consumers who have received defective or inadequate services. 3. **Jurisdictional Basis**: According to Section 25 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, a claim for damages due to a contravention of the Act should be filed in the Consumer Court. 4. **Remedial Powers**: The Consumer Court can award monetary compensation to the affected consumer for losses suffered due to defective services. 5. **Examples of Cases**: Claims can include cases where a consumer seeks compensation for harm or loss due to faulty medical reports, inadequate treatment, or other substandard services provided by healthcare providers. ### Healthcare Commission 1. **Scope of Authority**: The Healthcare Commission is a regulatory body established under the Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010, with the authority to oversee and regulate healthcare service providers. 2. **Types of Claims**: It handles issues related to maladministration, malpractice, and failures in the provisioning of healthcare services. Its jurisdiction includes investigating and addressing complaints about the quality and standards of healthcare services. 3. **Jurisdictional Basis**: Under Section 4(e) of the Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010, the Commission has the authority to investigate and act on complaints regarding the quality of healthcare services. 4. **Regulatory Powers**: The Commission can impose penalties, fines, and other regulatory actions against healthcare providers for violations of standards. It can also mandate corrective measures to improve healthcare services. 5. **Limitations**: The Commission does not have the jurisdiction to award damages to consumers. Its primary function is regulatory oversight, ensuring that healthcare providers adhere to established standards and practices. 6. **Examples of Cases**: Cases involving allegations of medical negligence, substandard practices, or non-compliance with regulatory standards fall under its purview. ### Key Differences - **Nature of Relief**: The Consumer Court can grant monetary damages to consumers for defective services, whereas the Healthcare Commission can impose regulatory penalties but cannot award damages. - **Jurisdictional Focus**: The Consumer Court focuses on individual claims for compensation due to service deficiencies, while the Healthcare Commission focuses on regulatory compliance and improving healthcare service standards. - **Legal Frwhile the Consumer Court provides a forum for consumers to seek compensation for defective services, the Healthcare Commission ensures regulatory compliance and addresses systemic issues within the healthcare sector.
The court order delineates the distinct jurisdictions and roles of the Consumer Court and the Healthcare Commission, highlighting their complementary yet separate functions:
### Consumer Court
1. **Scope of Authority**: The Consumer Court deals with claims for damages arising from faulty or defective services, including medical services, under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005.
2. **Types of Claims**: It handles claims of damages, whether contractual or tortious, filed by consumers who have received defective or inadequate services.
3. **Jurisdictional Basis**: According to Section 25 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, a claim for damages due to a contravention of the Act should be filed in the Consumer Court.
4. **Remedial Powers**: The Consumer Court can award monetary compensation to the affected consumer for losses suffered due to defective services.
5. **Examples of Cases**: Claims can include cases where a consumer seeks compensation for harm or loss due to faulty medical reports, inadequate treatment, or other substandard services provided by healthcare providers.
### Healthcare Commission
1. **Scope of Authority**: The Healthcare Commission is a regulatory body established under the Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010, with the authority to oversee and regulate healthcare service providers.
2. **Types of Claims**: It handles issues related to maladministration, malpractice, and failures in the provisioning of healthcare services. Its jurisdiction includes investigating and addressing complaints about the quality and standards of healthcare services.
3. **Jurisdictional Basis**: Under Section 4(e) of the Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010, the Commission has the authority to investigate and act on complaints regarding the quality of healthcare services.
4. **Regulatory Powers**: The Commission can impose penalties, fines, and other regulatory actions against healthcare providers for violations of standards. It can also mandate corrective measures to improve healthcare services.
5. **Limitations**: The Commission does not have the jurisdiction to award damages to consumers. Its primary function is regulatory oversight, ensuring that healthcare providers adhere to established standards and practices.
6. **Examples of Cases**: Cases involving allegations of medical negligence, substandard practices, or non-compliance with regulatory standards fall under its purview.
### Key Differences
- **Nature of Relief**: The Consumer Court can grant monetary damages to consumers for defective services, whereas the Healthcare Commission can impose regulatory penalties but cannot award damages.
- **Jurisdictional Focus**: The Consumer Court focuses on individual claims for compensation due to service deficiencies, while the Healthcare Commission focuses on regulatory compliance and improving healthcare service standards.
- **Legal Framework**: The Consumer Court operates under the Consumer Protection Act, 2005, dealing with consumer rights and claims, whereas the Healthcare Commission operates under the Healthcare Commission Act, 2010, focusing on regulatory oversight and enforcement.
In summary, while the Consumer Court provides a forum for consumers to seek compensation for defective services, the Healthcare Commission ensures regulatory compliance and addresses systemic issues within the healthcare sector.
The court's unique order in this case involves a detailed analysis of the jurisdictional boundaries between the Consumer Court and the Healthcare Commission. Here are the key aspects of the court's unique order:
1. **Jurisdiction Clarification**: The court clarified that the Consumer Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate claims for damages arising from faulty or defective healthcare services under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005.
2. **Role of Healthcare Commission**: The court recognized that the Healthcare Commission's role is regulatory, focusing on investigating and addressing maladministration, malpractice, and failure in healthcare services provision under the Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010. However, it cannot adjudicate claims for damages.
3. **Harmonious Construction**: The court emphasized the principle of harmonious construction, stating that both Acts (the Consumer Protection Act, 2005 and the Healthcare Commission Act, 2010) are complementary rather than conflicting. The provisions of one Act do not render the provisions of the other redundant.
4. **Dual Remedies**: The court acknowledged that a consumer can seek damages for defective services from the Consumer Court while simultaneously approaching the Healthcare Commission for regulatory action against the service provider.
5. **Dismissal of Petition**: The court dismissed the petition, affirming the Consumer Court's jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint for damages filed by respondent No. 3.
6. **Clarification on Previous Case Law**: The court addressed and distinguished previous case law cited by the petitioners, clarifying that those cases involved issues of medical negligence, which fall under the purview of the Healthcare Commission.
In summary, the court's unique order reaffirmed the distinct roles of the Consumer Court and the Healthcare Commission, ensuring that consumers have access to appropriate remedies for defective healthcare services while maintaining regulatory oversight by the Healthcare Commission.
Sure, here are the main points discussed in the legal document:
1. **Background**: The petition challenges the jurisdiction of the Consumer Court to adjudicate a complaint regarding faulty healthcare services, arguing that jurisdiction lies with the Healthcare Commission under the Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010.
2. **Jurisdictional Dispute**: The petitioners argue that the Healthcare Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over allegations of maladministration, malpractice, and failures in healthcare services provision, as per the provisions of the Act of 2010.
3. **Counter-Argument**: The respondent contends that while the Healthcare Commission may impose penalties for violations, it cannot grant damages, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Court or Civil Court.
4. **Court's Analysis**: The court examines the provisions of both Acts and concludes that they serve distinct purposes. The Consumer Court deals with claims of damages, while the Healthcare Commission regulates healthcare services provision.
5. **Decision**: The court dismisses the petition, affirming the jurisdiction of the Consumer Court over claims of damages and emphasizing the distinct roles and powers of both the Consumer Court and the Healthcare Commission.
Overall, the document elucidates the legal intricacies surrounding jurisdictional disputes between regulatory bodies and courts in matters related to healthcare services and consumer rights.
Form No:HCJD/C-121
ORDER SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT
BAHAWALPUR BENCH, BAHAWALPUR
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
W.P No.2863/2024
Dr. Omer Chughtai, etc.
Vs
Province of the Punjab, etc.
S.No. of order/
proceeding
Date of order/
Proceeding
Order with signature of Judge, and that of parties or counsel,
where necessary
16.05.2024
Mr. Ehsan Ullah Manj, Advocate for petitioners.
Rai Mazhar Hussain Kharal, Assistant Advocate General.
Mr. Zafar Iqbal Sheikh, Advocate for respondent No.3.
This constitutional petition is directed against order
dated 27.03.2024, whereby respondent No.2 - Presiding
Officer District Consumer Court Bahawalnagar - had
dismissed the application preferred by the petitioners
seeking rejection / return of complaint, brought by
respondent No.3. Petitioners plead that respondent No.2,
exercising powers under the provisions of Punjab
Consumer Protection Act, 2005 (‘Act 2005’), lacks
jurisdiction to hear, entertain and adjudicate the complaint
and in fact jurisdiction to inquire into allegations of
maladministration, malpractices and alleged failure on the
part of the Healthcare Service Provider – [claimed that
Chughtai Lab Jail Road Lahore is the Healthcare Service
Provider] exclusively vests in the Healthcare Commission
under the provisions of Punjab Healthcare Commission
Act, 2010 (‘Act of 2010’).
2.
Facts essential for deciding instant constitutional
petition are that respondent No.3 hired services for
carrying out certain clinical tests. Respondent No.3
questioned the veracity of clinical reports by the
petitioners and put service provider to notice, whereafter
W.P. No.2863/2024
-:2:-
complaint was filed for recovery of damages, claiming
liability for faulty or defective services, by invoking
jurisdiction of Consumer Court. Jurisdiction of respondent
No.2 to proceed with complaint was questioned and
objection repelled. Hence, this petition.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners pleaded that in
terms of sub-section (2) of section 26 and section 29, read
with section 4 (e) of the Act of 2010, jurisdiction to
investigate with respect to allegations of
maladministration, malpractice and failure in provisioning
of healthcare services vests, exclusively, in the
Commission, which jurisdiction can be triggered upon
bringing grievance to the notice of Commission in terms of
section 4(7)(a) of the Act 2010. It is emphasized that issue
came up for adjudication earlier and decided vide decision
in the case of Dr. Riaz Qadeer Khan vs. Presiding Officer,
District Consumer Court, Sargodha and others (PLD 2019
Lahore 429). Adds that ratio was followed in the case of
Lady Dr. Nafesa Saleem and another vs. Justice of
Peace/Additional Sessions Judge, Multan and 2 others
(PLD 2022 Lahore 18) and also in an unreported decision
in the case of “Mariam Sajjad vs. Prof. Dr. Rasool Ahmed
Chaudhry (RFA No.70634/2023).
4.
Conversely, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.3 submits that jurisdiction of the
Commission, which is otherwise discretionary, is restricted
to imposition of penalty and Commission had no power to
adjudicate claim of damages and grant damages,
contractual or tortuous, which jurisdiction is either vested
in the Consumer Court or Civil Court, depending on the
facts of the case. He relies upon unreported decision in the
case of “Mariam Sajjad vs. Prof. Dr. Rasool Ahmed
W.P. No.2863/2024
-:3:-
Chaudhry (RFA No.70634/2023), Dr. Muhammad Asif
Osawala vs. Mrs. Qamar-un-Nisa Hakro through Attorney
and another (PLD 2022 Singh 430), Dr. Shamshad
Hussain Syed vs. District Consumer Court, Lahore and
another (PLD 2010 Lahore 214) and Shifa International
Hospitals Ltd. and others vs. Mst. Hajira Bibi and others
(PLD 2018 Islamabad 372).
5.
Heard.
6.
Arguments advanced by the petitioners, if
appreciated would result in rendering various provisions of
Act 2005 redundant, which was neither intended through
legislative endeavour in shape of Act 2010 nor could such
an intent be implied. No inconsistency is found in the
enactments, which clearly define the path and the
destination. Upon perusal of both statutes no case for
express or implied repeal is made out. Principles of
harmonious construction are attracted and applicable.
7.
A bird’s eye view is imperative to understand the
scope of the authority and powers available to the
Commission and the Consumer Court, conspicuous
distinctiveness in the functions to be performed and
jurisdictional context, respectively enjoyed and exercised
under each enactment. Section 2(k) of Act 2005 defines
services, which inter alia included ‘medical services’;
section 13 of Act 2005 defines liability in the context of
faulty or defective services. Section 25 of Act 2005
describes the nature of the claim, that is „A claim of
damages arising out of the contravention of any provision
of this Act shall be filed before a Consumer Court set up
under this Act‟.
W.P. No.2863/2024
-:4:-
8.
Conversely, the scope of authority / control
conferred unto the Commission under the Act 2010 is akin
to a regulatory control – needed to be appreciated in the
context that Commission is the regulator of the Healthcare
Services establishment or service provided, being the
licensee. There is no cavil that Commission is empowered
to enquire and investigate into maladministration,
malpractice and failure in provisioning of Healthcare
services – section 4(e) of Act 2010 but in the capacity of
regulator, ensuring improvement of quality of healthcare
services. Commission may exercise powers on the
application of the aggrieved person, which assumption and
exercise of authority is evidently discretionary –
distinction has been drawn vis-Ã -vis the application of the
aggrieved person and a reference by the Government or
direction by Constitutional Court(s), sub-section (7) of
section 4 of Act, 2010. Fundamental difference in
assumption and exercise of jurisdiction is with respect to
orders Commission could pass, in the context of the
grievance raised, if it acted upon the application of the
aggrieved person. In terms of section 28 of the Act 2010,
Commission is empowered to impose fine / penalty, in
wake of contravention of any provision of Act 2010, which
cannot exceed of Rs.500,000/-, depending upon the gravity
of the offence. Use of expression ‘offence’ is section 28 of
Act 2010 is meaningful.
For the purposes of this case, complaint filed by
respondent No.3 is not seeking imposition of penalty for
any alleged offence committed by the Healthcare Services
provider but damages for faulty and defective services.
Services rendered being the licensee and services rendered
towards the hirer or consumer are different and this
distinction sheds light on the distinctiveness of the
W.P. No.2863/2024
-:5:-
enactments and scope of powers defined therein. A
consumer can file a claim of damages before the Consumer
Court and simultaneously seek indulgence of the regulator
/ licensor for action against licensee. Section 29 of Act
2010 has to be construed in the context of the authority of
the Commission, which provision of law cannot be
employed to restrict or discourage claim of damages.
Choices of the hirer of services cannot be limited for
seeking penalty only but evidently the option of subjecting
service provider to contractual or tortuous damages is
otherwise available before the Consumer Court or the Civil
Court, depending upon the facts of the case. These two
streams of remedies manifest true intent of the legislature
and address the purpose/objective of each of the
enactment.
9.
Learned counsel for petitioners failed to convince
that how damages could be granted by the Commission
under the Act 2010. Argument that no claim of damages
could be filed unless allegation of maladministration or
malpractice is adjudicated upon and endorsed by the
Commission is misconceived. Role of the Commission to
act as gatekeeper for determining the existence and pursuit
of damages is mere figment of imagination, and not
conceived by the provisions of Act 2010. Learned counsel
for the petitioner failed to give any explanation when
confronted with the mandate of sub-section (11) of section
4 of Act, 2010, which reads as,
“The Commission shall not investigate or inquire
into any matter subjudice before a Court of
competent jurisdiction on the date of the receipt of a
complaint. Reference or motions.”
10. Reliance of the petitioner on sub-clause (2) of
section 26 of Act, 2010 is also misconceived, when
W.P. No.2863/2024
-:6:-
considered in the context of the narrative in paragraphs
supra. Learned counsel for the petitioners concedes that
complaint of respondent No.3 does not fall within the
context of medical negligence, as contemplated and
defined in the Act of 2010.
11. Learned counsel emphasized on the ratio settled in
the case of Dr. Riaz Qadeer Khan vs. Presiding Officer,
District Consumer Court, Sargodha and others (PLD 2019
Lahore 429), without appreciating that therein claim
pleaded before the Consumer Court was regarding medical
negligence. Penultimate paragraph of decision in the case
of Dr. Riaz Qadeer Khan‟s (supra) is relevant and calls for
reproduction, which reads as,
“For what has been discussed above, we are
persuaded to hold that Healthcare Commission is
the only competent forum to investigate into the
allegations of maladministration or malpractice by
a health service provider and the Consumer Court
has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such matters.
Resultantly, all these writ petitions are allowed and
the complaints pending before the learned
Consumer Court are directed to be returned for its
presentation before the appropriate forum.”
[Emphasis supplied]
It is evident that in wake of allegations of
maladministration or malpractice by the Health service
provider, the Commission and not the Consumer Court has
the jurisdiction, to impose penalty or pass other
consequential orders, which per se excludes claim of
damages from the jurisdictional domain of the
Commission. It is interesting that one of the Judges-inChambers being co-signatory of the decision in the case of
Dr. Riaz Qadeer Khan‟s, has authored the decision dated
19.12.2023 while deciding RFA No.70634/2023 (supra),
wherein pertinent observations are made by learned
Division Bench, which are reproduced hereunder:-
W.P. No.2863/2024
-:7:-
“The Punjab Healthcare Commission can
investigate into the allegations of malpractice of
failure on the part of healthcare service provider
and can announced order in this regard but it has
no jurisdiction to grant damages to a person
affected by such service whereas said relief can only
be granted by the Civil Court if an aggrieved person
proves his case. Furthermore, under the Act ibid
even no bar has been imposed upon an aggrieved
person to approach Civil Court for claim of
damages against any healthcare service provider.
As such the argument of learned counsel for the
respondent have no force and same is repelled.”
12. It is evident that learned author Judge-in-Chambers
provided requisite explanation, observing that claim of
damages is distinguishable from the power to impose
penalty, jurisdiction otherwise extended to the
Commission under the law. Yes, as far as the question of
imposition of penalty by the regulator, Commissions may
claim exclusivity to the extent thereof. The ratio settled in
the case of Dr. Muhammad Asif Osawala (supra) also
provides an insight into distinctive jurisdictional
domain(s), respectively available to the Commission and
Consumer Court, and scope thereof.
13. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is devoid of
merits and same is hereby dismissed. It is pertinent to
observe that any observation herein made is solely for the
purposes of deciding the case, which shall neither
prejudice determination of the claim before Consumer
Comments
Post a Comment